SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation
WDC 174.18+6.9%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (10734)5/1/2000 3:40:00 PM
From: Michael A. Gottesman  Read Replies (2) of 60323
 
The action heats up again - SNDK vs. Lexar

Here's the latest from the Court docket:

4/25/00 231 LETTER dated 4/25/00 from Daniel A. Johnson to Judge Hamilton in 3:98-cv-01115 requesting leave to file an expedited motion to compel plaintiff to make Dr. Eli Harari available to complete his deposition. [3:98-cv-01115] (mcl) [Entry date 04/28/00] [3:98cv1115]

4/25/00 232 ORDER by Mag. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying defendant's request for leave to file a motion on an expedited basis for an order compelling plaintiff Sandiskto make Dr. Eli Harari available for additional deposition ( Date Entered: 4/28/00) (cc: all counsel)(3:98-cv-01115] (mcl) [Entry date 04/28/00] [3:98cv1115]

4/25/00 233 LETTER dated 4/24/00 from Daniel A. Johnson to Judge Hamilton in 3:98-cv-01115 re Dr. Eli Harari.[3:98-cv-01115] (mcl) [Entry date 04/28/00] [3:98cv1115]

4/26/00 234 LETTER dated 4/26/00 from James C. Yoon to Judge Hamiltonin 3:98-cv-01115 re Lexar's motion for reconsideration should be denied. [3:98-cv-01115] (mcl) [Entry date 04/28/00] [3:98cv1115]

4/27/00 235 OBJECTIONS by defendant Lexar Media Inc in 3:98-cv-01115 to order [232-1] [3:98-cv-01115] (mcl) [Entry date 04/28/00][3:98cv1115]

4/27/00 236 DECLARATION by Heather N. Mewes on behalf of defendant Lexar Media Inc in 3:98-cv-01115 re objection [235-1][3:98-cv-01115] (mcl) [Entry date 04/28/00] [3:98cv1115]

4/27/00 -- RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Lexar Media Inc in 3:98-cv-01115) vacating the Magistrate Judge's order [232-1] and granting Lexar Media's request to compel deposition of Harari. [3:98-cv-01115] (mcl)Entry date 04/28/00] [3:98cv1115]

From this sketchy docket I think the following is taking place: It appears that a portion of Eli's deposition was done, or perhaps it was completed. Lexar now wants Eli to reappear to "complete" his deposition. Lexar requested leave to file a motion on an expedited basis to compel the completion Eli's deposition.

Magistrate Hamilton denies the request. Lexar then asks the for a reconsideration of the application. SNDK opposes. Now this application to reconsider may have been made to Judge Breyer asking for the Judge to overturn the magistrates decision.

It appears that Lexar submitted a proposed order on April 27 vacating the magistrates order and granting the motion to compel Eli's continued deposition along with affidavits (declarations) in support of the request for reconsideration.

My observations: Lexar, after dragging it's feet for months, now seems to be shifting into high gear. They are now in a rush (IMHO). I think that Lexar realizes that their IPO is dead unless they resolve this litigation. They are probably squeezed for cash. IMHO, this puts SNDK in control. If I were counsel for SNDK, and I had an October trial date as per court order, I would consider making Lexar jump through every hoop and making them file motions for every bit of discovery in order to make Lexar expend as much time and money as possible prior to the trial date. Of course I would temper this should the Judge begin to get "pissed off." But I believe that despite the increased litigation costs to SNDK, making the litigation more protractive will only work to SNDK's benefit and weaken Lexar.

All IMHO.

Mike
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext